BoxRec

Loynesy wrote:
Apropos of nothing, I sat next to Julio Ceaser Chavez at lunch yesterday...

Did you have a Cesar salad?

This is a box office event IMO

Camcas wrote:This is a box office event IMO

Jesus Christ!

Dioufy wrote:

Camcas wrote:This is a box office event IMO

Jesus Christ!

shut it dioufy you dont no a bangtidy fight, if you was in one :!:

bengulnaci1 wrote:I'll watch it live on some stream I'll dig out on fight night for nothing.

Erm, yeah..

I've seen this car I like, but I don't think it should be that expensive, so i'm just going to nick it.

I'm sure Porche will keep building quality cars for us to nick and drive around for free.

Seriously, if you don't want to pay, go to a pub or casino that has it, or whatever, but for fucks sake, don't brag about getting an illegal stream. Those are just for parasites.

whicker wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:I'll watch it live on some stream I'll dig out on fight night for nothing.

Erm, yeah..

I've seen this car I like, but I don't think it should be that expensive, so i'm just going to nick it.

I'm sure Porche will keep building quality cars for us to nick and drive around for free.

Out of interest I wonder how many £15 PPV's would have to be illegally streamed to meet the value of a Porsche...

Terrrrry wrote:If it weren't for Cleverly fighting for a world title on the same bill, Groves/DeGale would be on normal Sky, in my opinion.

If it wasn't on PPV then the fight would never have been made!

Final round wrote:
Out of interest I wonder how many £15 PPV's would have to be illegally streamed to meet the value of a Porsche...

Well, if it's free, the ZERO!

Seriously though, I agree PPV is a rip off, but still, that doesn't justify illegal streams. Boxing is a business, after all- it's not a public service- we don't have a "right" to watch fights for free.

The only (possible) exception, morally, might be if someone had bought a SKY subscription on the grounds that Sky have made an implied promice to show the best of British boxing. If they then go on to ask for more money, sky has busted their part of the deal, so maybe, (morally) that could justify a stream. Morally, not legally.

I'd say it's morally acceptable to execute paedophiles that assault children (as an example of the moral / legal distinction.)

JDC wrote:

Loynesy wrote:Don't buy it then.

The market will determine whether this should have been a PPV. I suspect there will be enough buys to prove it a correct decision.

Apropos of nothing, I sat next to Julio Ceaser Chavez at lunch yesterday...

The market keeps getting marginalised because many of the decent breakthough fights for the casual fan/ next generation of fans get put on PPV.

I agree with this the most. It smacks of making a quick buck now rather than thinking of the long game and building up stars for bigger fights in the future. Ultimately PPV events for up and coming fighters will damage the fighters themselves.

What concerns me is that it seems to me to be promoting the idea that good, well matched domestic fights are somehow "special" and as such can be sold for more.

Really, there should be fights like this on more often, otherwise people will just not be interested.

The fact is we pay sky a subscription on the premise they will provide entertaining boxing - in addition to other things. Up until this fight the idea of watching a two sub 15 fight novices box, regardless of their quality was unheard of- warrens pulled off a masterstroke here- now not only is it acceptable to have domestic fights as ppv attractions; all matches that can garner any serious interest are going to be thrust on ppv where possible.

I don't blame those involved, they are thinking short term and all boxers deserve to make as much money as they can but I cannot help but sense that we as boxing fans are being made mugs off again.

whicker wrote:Seriously, if you don't want to pay, go to a pub or casino that has it, or whatever, but for fucks sake, don't brag about getting an illegal stream. Those are just for parasites.

I was speaking to the landlord of my local, he was charged £150 the last time he got a boxing PPV and there just isn't the interest to make it worth his while. If it's on people would watch it, but the people would be there anyway, boxing on or not. Until this year I bought PPV's religiously but my quality control kicked in before Skys did, Haye Harrision was the one which made me draw a line in the sand. I'm a fan of the sport but for me the onus is on promoters to safeguard the sports future (and their own potential earnings), not mine. I go to shows, I buy merchandise and dvds etc, as far as Im concerned I 'do my bit' and expect better value for £15 than has been offered on a number of PPV's of late. I understand streams may harm the sport, but considerably less so than politics, and poor match ups do. If its just a business, then the product needs to be improved.

I've got a good idea of the figures involved generally for boxing shows- I'd never divulge but sky are not blameless here! Groves- degale couldn't be made for the money sky's willing to put up. They are co beneficiaries of this ppv nonsense and are happy to be regardless of what the fans think

I actually dont mind pay-per-view if you get your money's worth i.e atleast 5 or 6 live fights (like the 2 magnificent 7 bills) compared to Khan Vs whoever and 1 or 2 fights/higlights accompanied

this IS a PPV level fight...or at least it is from a relative pov..

y'all may whinge and whine but the reason that there are a plethora of alphabet titles is so promoters / tv companies can build fights up as 'world title' events and sell them that way.

this fight may not be for a world title but it sells itself and i'd far rather pay to see this than clev / braemer...

someone earlier on said that degale / groves are relative unknowns...not so - degale's profile is high due to the olympics and groves rivalry with him has also raised georges profile.

even my old lady knows who they are ffs

this is a genuine grudge match that could go either way (tho i'd say it's 60 / 40 to degale) involving an olympic champion and the guy who beat him in the amatuers, both of whom have had a somewhat accelerated start to their professional careers and who have both won domestically prestigious titles against far more experienced opposition.

far more of a worthy and attractive potential fight than some of the so-called 'world title' ppv dross i've forked out for over the years.

apophenic wrote:this IS a PPV level fight...or at least it is from a relative pov..

y'all may whinge and whine but the reason that there are a plethora of alphabet titles is so promoters / tv companies can build fights up as 'world title' events and sell them that way.

this fight may not be for a world title but it sells itself and i'd far rather pay to see this than clev / braemer...

someone earlier on said that degale / groves are relative unknowns...not so - degale's profile is high due to the olympics and groves rivalry with him has also raised georges profile.

even my old lady knows who they are ffs

this is a genuine grudge match that could go either way (tho i'd say it's 60 / 40 to degale) involving an olympic champion and the guy who beat him in the amatuers, both of whom have had a somewhat accelerated start to their professional careers and who have both won domestically prestigious titles against far more experienced opposition.

far more of a worthy and attractive potential fight than some of the so-called 'world title' ppv dross i've forked out for over the years.

Completely agree with you

Camcas wrote:

apophenic wrote:this IS a PPV level fight...or at least it is from a relative pov..

y'all may whinge and whine but the reason that there are a plethora of alphabet titles is so promoters / tv companies can build fights up as 'world title' events and sell them that way.

this fight may not be for a world title but it sells itself and i'd far rather pay to see this than clev / braemer...

someone earlier on said that degale / groves are relative unknowns...not so - degale's profile is high due to the olympics and groves rivalry with him has also raised georges profile.

even my old lady knows who they are ffs

this is a genuine grudge match that could go either way (tho i'd say it's 60 / 40 to degale) involving an olympic champion and the guy who beat him in the amatuers, both of whom have had a somewhat accelerated start to their professional careers and who have both won domestically prestigious titles against far more experienced opposition.

far more of a worthy and attractive potential fight than some of the so-called 'world title' ppv dross i've forked out for over the years.

Completely agree with you

this for the domestic / commonwealth?

or khan / mckloskey for a 'world title'?

Living outside of UK means the only way I can watch it is via illegal stream.

Britannian Stallion wrote:Living outside of UK means the only way I can watch it is via illegal stream.

tut tut tut.

;;-)

Why aren't football matches PPV?

King Tubby wrote:Why aren't football matches PPV?

Give it time...

King Tubby wrote:Why aren't football matches PPV?

I can see the day when the FA cup final, or champions league final might be on PPV - but I don't think it will ever be a period when the regular season will be PPV - because people will get the results and, unlike boxing, it isn't a one off with major consequences - its just part of a season.

They tried with Premierplus and it failed miserably. Aslong as there is match of the day, then there will be no room for PPV Premiership football. One off finals in which you will never see again, then maybe.

Would they have been able to do that last Sunday if they'd wanted, with the Utd v Chelsea match?